Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor P E Coupland.

The Senior Planning Lawyer reported that notification had been received of the following substitutions for this meeting only:

·         Councillor A Casson was replacing Councillor M D Seymour

·         Councillor P A Redgate was replacing Councillor H Drury.

·         Councillor A M Newton was replacing Councillor C J T H Brewis.

To sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 10 March 2021 (copy enclosed). 

Consideration was given to the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 10 March 2021.

AGREED:

That the minutes be signed as a correct record.

(Where a Councillor has a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest the Councillor must declare the interest to the meeting and leave the meeting without participating in any discussion or making a statement on the item, except where a Councillor is permitted to remain as a result of a grant of dispensation.)

Councillor Newton informed the Committee that she lived in the ward affected by the application at agenda item 6 – she confirmed that she would listen to and participate in the debate, but would not vote.

Councillor Gammba-Jones informed the Committee that he was a Ward Member for the ward affected by the application at agenda item 5, and had declared his views – he confirmed that he would therefore listen to and participate in the debate,  but would not vote.

Councillor Lawton informed the Committee that she was a Ward Member for the ward affected by the application at agenda item 5, that she had been lobbied, and that she had submitted a formal objection on the grounds of location, consultation and highway safety .  She confirmed that she was pre-disposed, but not pre-determined, to reject the proposal, would listen to the arguments, and would vote.

There were none.

Application for a proposed 20m Phase 8 Monopole C/W wrapround cabinet at base and associated ancillary works at Wygate Park, Spalding (report of the Development Manager enclosed).

Consideration was given to the report of the Development Manager upon which the above application was to be determined, including his recommendations, copies of which had previously been circulated to all members.

Members debated the matter and fully explored the details of the application in light of prevailing policies and guidance. The debate was not repeated here as Planning Committee meetings were webcast and could be viewed in full at www.sholland.gov.uk for a limited period of time following which the recording could be made available by request, in line with the Democratic Services Privacy Notice.

Members were advised that by voting on this application they were confirming that by placing their vote they had heard:

·         Chairman’s introduction

·         Officer’s presentation

·         Ward Members address (if applicable)

·         Public Speaker(s) address (if applicable)

·         All members contributions to the debate

·         Officer’s responses

Note: Councillor Gambba-Jones spoke as a Ward Member on this item, and had declared his views, and therefore did not vote.

Note: Although present at the start of the meeting, Councillor Beal lost internet connection during discussion of the above item and therefore was unable to vote.  He remained absent for the remainder of the meeting.

AGREED:

That permission should be refused for the reasons listed in Section 9.0 of the report.

(Moved by Councillor Grocock, Seconded by Councillor Redgate)

Application for proposed 18m Phase 8 Monopole C/W wrapround cabinet at base and associated ancillary works at Birch Grove, Spalding (report of the Development Manager enclosed).

Consideration was given to the report of the Development Manager upon which the above application was to be determined, including his recommendations, copies of which had previously been circulated to all members.

Members debated the matter and fully explored the details of the application in light of prevailing policies and guidance. The debate was not repeated here as Planning Committee meetings were webcast and could be viewed in full at www.sholland.gov.uk for a limited period of time following which the recording could be made available by request, in line with the Democratic Services Privacy Notice.

Oral representations were received in respect of the above application in accordance with the Council’s scheme of public speaking at Planning Committee meetings:

Objector: The Lord Porter of Spalding (CBE) (Resident)

Members were advised that by voting on this application they were confirming that by placing their vote they had heard:

·         Chairman’s introduction

·         Officer’s presentation

·         Ward Members address (if applicable)

·         Public Speaker(s) address (if applicable)

·         All members contributions to the debate

·         Officer’s responses

Note: Councillor Newton spoke as a resident and Committee member on this item, and did not vote.

AGREED:

That permission should be refused for the following reason:

The proposal, by virtue of its siting, would represent an unduly dominant, obtrusive and alien feature within the street scene.  Accordingly, the proposal would result in unacceptable harm to the character, appearance and visual amenity of the surrounding area which is contrary to Policies 2 and 3 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan (2019).

(Moved by Councillor Tennant, Seconded by Councillor Woolf)

Full application for relocation of Acoustic Barrier – previously approved under H10-0462-19 at Princes Limited, Bridge Road, Long Sutton (report of the Development Manager enclosed).

Consideration was given to the report of the Development Manager upon which the above application was to be determined, including his recommendations, copies of which had previously been circulated to all members.

Members debated the matter and fully explored the details of the application in light of prevailing policies and guidance. The debate was not repeated here as Planning Committee meetings were webcast and could be viewed in full at www.sholland.gov.uk for a limited period of time following which the recording could be made available by request, in line with the Democratic Services Privacy Notice.

Members were advised that by voting on this application they were confirming that by placing their vote they had heard:

·         Chairman’s introduction

·         Officer’s presentation

·         Ward Members address (if applicable)

·         Public Speaker(s) address (if applicable)

·         All members contributions to the debate

·         Officer’s responses

AGREED:

That permission be granted subject to the conditions listed in Section 9.0 of the report, and the wording of condition 1 being amended to require the relocation of the acoustic barrier to be completed within six months of the date of the planning permission.

(Moved by Councillor Gambba-Jones, Seconded by Councillor Tennant)

There were none.

There were none.